REPEAT AND NEAR-REPEAT BURGLARY VICTIMIZATION IN ROCHESTER, NY
LITERATURE REVIEW: MOTIVATIONS TO COMMIT BURGLARY AND TARGET SELECTION
MARCH 2014
Michelle Comeau
Center for Public Safety Initiatives
Rochester Institute of Technology
[email protected]
John Klofas, Ph.D.
Director of Center for Public Safety Initiatives
Rochester Institute of Technology
[email protected]
A burglary occurs when an offender, “…knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building
with the intent to commit a crime therein”1. Although it does not require it, one common feature
of burglary is theft2. Burglary was the second most commonly reported Part I crime and
accounted for nearly a quarter (23.4%) of all property offenses committed within the United
States in 20123. Estimated average dollar loss per burglary was $2,240, with a total loss
estimated at $4.7 billion4. Just shy of 13% of burglaries (12.7%) were cleared by arrest or
exceptional means in the United States in 20125.
The United States National Crime Victimization Survey indicated that same year that an
estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred throughout the country (n = 3,764,540)6. Of those, 2.1
million were reported to police (n = 2,103,787), which indicates that just over half of all
estimated burglaries to occur within the United States are reported (55%)7.
The following paper serves as an introduction to burglary research. In this paper we focus
on the motivations to commit burglary and why certain targets are selected. This paper is in no
way intended as comprehensive; rather it provides a primer on the topic. For additional
information please review the reference page.
Motivations to Commit Burglary
Money. Money routinely is cited as the greatest motivating factor driving offending8. In a
landmark survey of over one hundred active offenders, it was found that over 90% burglarized
when they needed money9. More often than not, this money goes towards maintaining a lifestyle
known as “life as party10.”
Life as Party. Offenders are disproportionately young, male, and chronically poor11. They
want a lifestyle that many young men may want, but few can afford: one of hedonistic pleasure12.
This lifestyle is typified by an emphasis on entertainment (e.g., drinking, drug use, gambling,
1
women, and status items) and emphasizes the pursuit of entertainment to the detriment of
obligations and commitments external to the party lifestyle13.
Given the emphasis on the non-stop pursuit of pleasure, life as party conflicts with and
erodes an individual’s ability to maintain a life within the dominant culture. The heightened
importance of self-sufficiency hampers an individual’s adherence to legitimate employment.
Legitimate work may seem an abhorrent alternative to burglary in that it is poorly paid, the work
structure deprives an individual of autonomy and independence, and the offender would have
obligations to meet14.
The behavior promoted by life as party also depletes legitimate economic employment
opportunities15. With this depletion, an offender may turn to legitimate social ties for financial
support; however, borrowing money from individuals is only a short-term solution that does not
allow an offender to maintain the lifestyle he desires16. Further, the unreliable behaviors of a
person brought on by non-stop party pursuits make him unreliable to repay these loans, which in
turn sever many of the legitimate social ties he once had17.
Individuals in a life as party subculture may turn to crimes like burglary, initially, to
continue the party18. The party life is enjoyed in the company of others through group alcohol or
drug use and the ostentatious display of wealth19. To offend, then, is to maintain appearances of
wealth, prosperity, and status20.
With life as party’s emphasis on group drug and alcohol use, many develop addiction.
The substances once used socially for recreation instead become desired primarily to stave of the
inevitable withdrawal symptoms21. As addiction takes hold and financial and social capital is
depleted, the reasons for burglary shift. An offender cannot turn to legitimate resources to
maintain the party lifestyle or withdraw from it, as these resources have largely been depleted, so
2
instead he turns toward increasingly risky ventures: once a remote possibility, getting caught
becomes an inevitability 22.
Sustenance. While burglars say that they steal for basic sustenance (e.g., food, shelter,
bills, and clothing), any perceived nobility in this theft is suspect: once basic needs were met the
majority of offenders spend the remaining funds on status items or drugs23.
The Sneaky Thrill. Criminologist Jack Katz argues that crime is seductive: that some,
especially younger offenders, are motivated to burgle by the intrinsic psychological rewards of
crime24. A burglary may perceive the act as a euphoric demonstration of competence, his control
over his surroundings and environment, and his ability to play the system and win25. To these
persons, the stolen goods matter less than the act itself; it is important to recall, however, that the
number of offenders motivated by psychological rewards are dwarfed by the number of
offenders motivated for extrinsic reasons26.
Target Selection
A burglary will not occur unless an offender considers a location a suitable target for
victimization27. Multiple factors determine the perceived suitability of a target, including:
 Familiarity – most offenders do not travel very far to offend28. Although this may increase
their risk of being identified, it is advantageous for several reasons. Committing a crime can
be stressful, and familiarity with surroundings can reduce stress29. Limited access and
transportation can restrict movement out of familiar locations, as too can the fear of
appearing out of place (most offending is intra-racial)30.
 Occupancy – occupancy is routinely cited as the most important factor in considering target
selection: burglars prefer unoccupied targets31. Burglaries committed on unoccupied homes
(e.g., houses vacant during the day or for long periods of time) are most likely to be
3
successful32. Occupancy proxies (e.g., dogs, alarms, a vehicle in the driveway) can
sometimes deter burglars33. A small percentage of burglars do not mind occupancy – if
residents are asleep – as it means that valuable items are certain to be within the home; yet
such burglaries are risky, as residents may successfully thwart the offense34.
 Visibility or Surveillability – the extent to which an offender can see or is seen from a
location is important to consider: visibility increases the chance of witnesses35. For this
reason many burglars tend to avoid well-kept neighborhoods with elderly residents, or enter
dwellings from the rear36.
 Seclusion – seclusion is a component of visibility37. Examples of seclusion include dwellings
that are spread far apart, those surrounded by vacant properties, locations on a corner or in a
cul de sac, and those with cover (e.g., dwellings located in the woods or with concealing
architecture)38. Offenders also consider light levels. In the day, properties with cover are
targeted to reduce visibility. When night descends, the darkness makes cover less important,
altering the properties that are targeted39
 Accessibility – if a property is accessible it poses little challenge in its entry40. Dwellings can
be accessed most easily through windows and doors, with or without the use of force41.
 Vulnerability – Inexpensive and easily broken window and door locks, a lack of security
devices, and careless upkeep of security features are all linked with an increase in burglary
risk42. Conversely, security doors and storm windows, dogs, and alarms have all been cited as
deterrents to entry43.
 Potential Rewards – no matter how suitable a dwelling is otherwise, if it does not appear to
contain anything worth stealing it will likely not be targeted44. The size and condition of a
home, its yard size and maintenance, and the car in the driveway all are indicators of
4
wealth45. These external cues indicate internal wealth; despite this, many of the most
commonly stolen items (e.g., jewelry, money, weapons, and electronics) may be found in
homes across all economic strata46.
Conclusion & Future Papers
The above pages have served to provide an introduction into literature on the motivation
to commit burglary and what offenders look for when selecting targets. In future papers, we will
turn towards the topic of repeat and near-repeat victimization – particularly burglary. This will
culminate in an examination of repeat and near-repeat burglary within Rochester, NY, across
five-years’ of data.
5
Works Cited
Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender.
Hampshire, England: Grover Publishing Company Limited.
Buck, A. J., Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. F. (1993). Burglar alarms and the choice behavior of
burglars: A suburban phenomenon. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 497-507.
Catalano, S. (2010). National Crime Victimization Survey: Victimization During Household
Burglary. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
Conklin, J. E., & Bittner, E. (1973). Burglary in a suburb. Criminology, 11(2), 206-232.
Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being
seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431-464.
Cromwell, P. (1994). Juvenile burglars. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 85-92.
Cromwell, P., & Olson, J. N. (2004). Breaking and Entering: Burglars on Burglary. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Uniform crime reports for the United States: 2012.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Press.
Grabosky, P. N. (1995). Burglary prevention Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice (Vol.
49). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Hough, M. (1987). Offenders' choice of target: Findings from victim surveys. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 3(4), 355-369.
6
Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil. New York,
NY: Basic Book Publishers.
Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. The British Journal of
Criminology, 46, 935-949.
Nee, C., & Taylor, M. (1988). Residential burglary in the Republic of Ireland: A situational
perspective. The Howard Journal, 27(2), 105-116.
New York State Penal Code, 140 §§ 140.20-140.30.
Palmer, E. J., Holmes, A., & Hollin, C. R. (2002). Investigating burglars' decisions: Factors
influencing target choice, method of entry, reasons for offending, repeat victimization of
a property and victim awareness. Security Journal, 7-18.
Roth, J. J. (2013). An analysis of the factors affecting the target choices of residential burglars.
Department of Criminology. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Shover, N. (1996). Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Shover, N., & Copes, H. (2010). Decision Making by Persistent Thieves and Crime Control
Policy. In H. Barlow & S. Decker (Eds.), Criminology and Public Policy (pp. 128-149).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Shover, N., & Honaker, D. (1991). The Socially Bounded decision making of Persistent Property
Offenders: University of Tennessee.
Snook, B., Dhami, M. K., & Kavanagh, J. M. (2011). Simply criminal: Predicting burglars'
occupancy decisions with a simple heuristic. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 316-326.
Truman, J., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Criminal Victimization, 2012. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
7
Weisel, D. L. (2004). Burglary of Single-Family Homes Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Services: COPS Office.
Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1988). How young house burglars choose targets. The Howard Journal,
27(2), 92-104.
Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1994). Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-ins.
Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Wright, R., Logie, R., & Decker, S. (1995). Criminal expertise and offender decision making: An
experimental study of the target selection process in residential burglary. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(1), 39-53.
1
NYS PENAL Code 140 §§ 140.20-140.30
Roth, 2013; Catalano, 2010; Conklin & Bittner, 1973
3
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013
4
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013
5
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013
6
Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013; Catalano, 2010
7
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013; Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013
8
Shover & Copes, 2010; Shover, 1996; Grabosky, 1995; Wright & Decker, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991; Nee & Taylor, 1988.
9
Wright & Decker, 1994
10
Shover & Copes, 2010; Shover, 1996; Wright & Decker, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991
11
Wright & Decker, 1994
12
Shover & Copes, 2010; Shover, 1996; Shover & Honaker, 1991
13
Shover & Copes, 2010; Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Shover, 1996; Wright & Decker, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991; Bennett &
Wright, 1984
14
Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Wright & Decker, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991
15
Shover & Honaker, 1991
16
Wright & Decker, 1994
17
Wright & Decker, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991
18
Shover & Copes, 2010; Shover, 1996; Wright & Decker, 1994
19
Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Shover & Honaker, 1991
20
Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Wright & Decker, 1994; Bennett & Wright, 1984
21
Shover & Copes, 2010; Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Shover & Honaker, 1991
22
Shover & Honaker, 1991
23
Wright & Decker, 1994
24
Cromwell, 1994; Katz, 1988; Bennett & Wright, 1984
25
Cromwell, 1994; Katz, 1988
26
Shover & Copes, 2010; Shover, 1996; Wright & Decker, 1994; Cromwell, 1994; Shover & Honaker, 1991; Katz, 1988
27
Cohen & Felson, 1979
28
Weisel, 2004; Palmer, Holmes, & Hollin, 2002; Buck, Hakim, & Rengert, 1993; Hough, 1987
29
Wright & Decker, 1994
30
Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Wright & Decker, 1994; Cohen & Felson, 1979
31
Roth, 2013; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006; Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Weisel, 2004; Nee & Taylor, 1988; Wright & Decker, 1994
2
8
32
Weisel, 2004; Hough, 1987
Roth, 2013; Snook, Dhami, & Kavanagh, 2011; Weisel, 2004; Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995; Wright & Logie, 1988; Hough,
1987
34
Nee & Meenaghan, 2006; Hough, 1987
35
Roth, 2013; Weisel, 2004
36
Wright & Decker, 1994; Palmer, Holmes, & Hollin, 2002; Hough, 1987
37
Weisel, 2004
38
Weisel, 2004; Buck, Hakim, & Rengert, 1993
39
Coupe & Blake, 2006; Cromwell & Olson, 2004; Hough, 1987
40
Cromwell & Olson, 2004
41
Roth, 2013; Weisel, 2004
42
Weisel, 2004
43
Roth, 2013; Weisel, 2004; Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995; Wright & Decker, 1994; Wright & Logie, 1988
44
Cromwell & Olson, 2004
45
Weisel, 2004
46
Roth, 2013; Weisel, 2004
33
9